From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16439 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2006 21:49:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 16430 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Apr 2006 21:49:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:49:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F009D48CF23; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 23133-01-8; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CB048CE21; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id A2FBB47E7F; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:49:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis , jimb@red-bean.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA/i386] pb reading insns if breakpoints still inserted Message-ID: <20060428214902.GH930@adacore.com> References: <20060428171154.GP17613@adacore.com> <8f2776cb0604281054y116acfdavc3649dd8198d80d0@mail.gmail.com> <200604281839.k3SIdfsq030892@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <8f2776cb0604281358x2f667d00s90e03051f034b91c@mail.gmail.com> <200604282109.k3SL9Jwp020317@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060428211258.GA6713@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060428211258.GA6713@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 Hello, I am slightly concerned that the side-discussions about the necessity of frame debugging info, or prologue skipping when inserting a breakpoint ended up burying the patch I just submitted. The case presented here is different from the topics later discussed in this thread, so I'm not sure I can see how any modification made from these discussions is going to solve the case at hand. Soooooo... Is somebody going to review the patch? No deadline expected, I just want to make sure that it's not been rejected without me knowing it. If it has been rejected, then I need to understand the reasons so that I can work on a better version. Thanks, -- Joel